An Analysis of the Importance of Extension in Accounting for the Post-Carboniferous Subsidence of the North Sea Basin

An Analysis of the Importance of Extension in Accounting for the Post-Carboniferous Subsidence of the North Sea Basin By John G. Sclater, Steven J. Hellinger, and Mark Shorey April 18, 1986 The University of Texas at Austin Institute for Geophysics 4920 North IH 35 Austin, TX 78751 University of Texas Institute for Geophysics Technical Report #44 SUMMARY Post Carboniferous sedimentary deposition in the Central North Sea basins can be separated into three major periods: Permian, Triassic and mid-Jurassic through present. Most efforts to explain the basin within an extensional framework have concentrated on the post mid-Jurassic subsidence. These efforts have ignored the large amount of prior extension required to account for the observed crustal thinning and the substantial Permian and Triassic sediment fill. In addition the models predict a mid- Jurassic through early Cretaceous extension that significantly exceeds estimates of the horizontal displacement observed on high angle faults on multichannel seismic lines. We show in areas of minimal pre-Permian subsidence that adding two earlier phase extensions, one in the late Carboniferous through early Permian and the other in the Triassic produces a nearly horizontal late Carboniferous crustal thickness. The time-dependent extensional model required to account for the three periods of sediment deposition gives an excellent match to the observed subsidence history of the basement. We present an analysis of a recent seismic reflection line nm across the Central Graben in the vicinity of published refraction and well data. We show that the extension required in the third phase of the three phase model is compatible with the observed displacement on the high angle mid- Jurassic through early Cretaceous faults. However, we find no evidence for major extension either in the Triassic or late Carboniferous through early Permian. The absence of visible evidence on the seismic line of major pre- Jurassic faulting is a problem. We propose that subsidence in the late Carboniferous was associated with wrench faulting and thermal destabiliza- l tion in the Tornquist Zone. The Triassic sediment fill resulted from transtensional faulting in same zone. Because both stages of faulting involve only fifteen to twenty percent extension and are in an area severely disturbed by later faulting, they will be difficult to detect. The depth of the faulted horizons, the substantial salt cover and possible later salt motion all add to these difficulties. The three phase extensional model based on the geological history of the area accounts for the crustal thinning, the total sediment fill and the burial history of the basement. It should not be rejected because of the absence of evidence for major pre-Jurassic extension without a better understanding of the late Carboniferous and Triassic tectonic history. 2 INTRODUCfiON Geologic history The North Sea basin has been a site of major exploration for hydro- carbons. It is bounded by land masses whose geological history is well known. Also, there are abundant wells, logs and interpreted seismic sections available from the basin for study. Ziegler (1978) (1982) has published generally accepted summaries of the geological information of the area. Additional geophysical information is available. This includes gravity measurements (Donato and Tally,l981) and deep crustal data. This data was gathered using both wide-angle (Barton and Wood, 1984) and normal incidence (Barton et al., 1984) methods. Simple models based on extension of the crust have provided a useful framework for examining the tectonic history of continental basins and shelves (Salveson, 1978; MacKenzie, 1978; and Royden, et al., 1980). Given that many of the major phases of subsidence appear related to prior extension and the abundance of geological and geophysical information, the North Sea basin is a particularly good area in which to test the quantitative validity of these models. The sediments overlying crystalline basement in the North Sea accumulated in a suite of successive basins developed in response to varying tectonic settings (Ziegler, 1981). In much of the area, the basement was consolidated during the Caledonian orogeny which was followed by a period of Devonian faulting (Figure la). An early Carboniferous basin formed in the foredeep associated with the Variscan front. In the late Carboniferous compressional phase this basin was uplifted and eroded. The lower Carboniferous is generally taken as basement in the North Sea. During the latest Carboniferous and early Permian (Stephanian- 3 j [__ _ ] CAMBRO- SILURIAN ~ PC BASEMENT ~~ g:~~~~~~~N FRONT VARISCAN DEVONIAN - ~~OT~~~~~PHICS CJ DEFORMATION FRONT D CA-LEDONIAN INTERNIDES D DINANTIAN-NAMURIAN --=- MAJOR FAULTS ~-:::-0-1 CALEDONIAN EXTERNIOES - WESTPHAliAN PfotESENT SHELF EDGE ~ VARISCAN FOLDBELT D ST£PflANIAN Figure la: Pre-Permian subcrop map of Northwestern Europe (Ziegler, in press). Prlfdomrnontly N•oqene ond Quaternary IIOiconrcs Figure lb: Isopach map of Cenozoic series. Contours in hundreds of meters (Ziegler, 1981). Autunian), there was a major phase of wrench faulting and igneous activity which profoundly changed the tectonic setting of the North Sea basin. Following this change, the east west trending north and south Permian bastns were created. The general subsidence of these two basins gave rise to the deposition of the Rotliegend sandstone and the transgression of the Zechstein seas. During the Triassic, the North Sea was modified by the formation of a generally north-south graben system. However, in the region between the basin and the Russian-Fennoscandia platform (the Tornquist Zone), there is evidence for an east west trending system of half grabens (Ziegler, 1981, encl. 29; Pengrum, 1984; Figure 9). The Viking and Central Grabens, which were created during the Triassic, developed during the Jurassic into the major structural elements in the North Sea. In the early Jurassic, there was apparent doming restricted to the Central Graben area before further extension started in the mid-Jurassic. Rifting and differential subsidence continued through the early Cretaceous to the mid-Cretaceous boundary. After this time, the subsidence in the basin became widespread with the thickest late Cretaceous and Tertiary sequences of sediments being deposited over the Viking and Central grabens. The Tertiary regional subsidence led to the development of the distinctive symmetrical saucer shape of the North Sea basin (Figure lb) • We present as Figure 2a a schematic outline of the stratigraphy of the Central Graben (Ziegler, 1977) and in Figure 2b we show a correlation of the post-Triassic tectonic events in the North Sea with those in the North Atlantic and elsewhere in Europe (Ziegler, 1978). There are five major periods of subsidence during the Phanerozoic in the North Sea basin: Devonian, Carboniferous, Permian, Triassic and upper Jurassic to present. The Triassic and post Jurassic subsidence is 4 I LITHOLOGY AND MAJOR AGE ; METRES I OIL/GAS OCCURRENCES I PLEISTOCENE I ~ PLIOCENE i ,.. 1000- ! a: ! <l I 3300 ~~ I 0-600 I 1 o-2500 j I 500- ! I 1100 i ~ ' o-700 1 Figure 2a: A schematic outline of the stratigraphy of the Central Graben (Ziegler, in press). GE~~:~:_o· EX~~:l:~~~AL N:;EHT ~L:::IC I--,=----,N-O_R.,.T-,H:-W--:E"S_T_ErR_N-,=E-::U~R:-0--PEI-:::-=::::----1 ALPIN[ DOMAIN TECTONIC NORTH SEA POLISH MARGINAL SCALE CURVE StLOWI FLOOR SPREADING PHASES RIFT TROUGH TROUGHS STRONG ~EGIONAL STA.81LITY SUBSIDENCE PYR(N[AN LARAMIDE SU8HERC'rNIAN AUSTRIAN LATE kiMMERIAN SU85EOUENT } MID KIMMERIAN MAIN MID KIMME- RIAN .i -EARLY KIMMERIAN HARDEGSEN ....... MAJOR}Rif'TING &, .-REHCHING * ANO#tOGENIC VOt..C.&NI$111 D SEAfLOOR sPREAOtNG PHASES -MtfrltOR + ANOfiOGlNIC INTRUSIVES Figure 2b: Correlation of tectonic events in the Atlantic, the Northwestern ~uropean rift system and the Alpine orogenic belt (Ziegler, 1978). associated with active faulting and extension. The Carboniferous subsidence is presumed related to the regional downwarping of the 1 i thosphere at the toe of the Var is ian front. There are differences of opinion as to how the Permian basins were created. Glennie (1983) and Pegrum (1984) suggest that they were formed predominantly as a result of wrench faulting. In addition, Glennie (1983) believes they are related to all the post Permian phases of subsidence. On the other hand, Sorenson (in press) argues that both the north Permian basin and the Triassic Norwegian-Danish basin are predominantly thermal in origin and related to lithosphere wide cooling following the Stephanian- Autunian igneous event. Ziegler (1982) favors a combination of the two effects for the North Permian basin. He suggests a combination of wrench induced igneous activity followed by a thermal destablization of the lithosphere. Further, he argues that both the North and South Permian basins are not related to the Triassic phase of extension that led to the a creation of the Viking and Central Grabens. The geological history presented by Ziegler (1982) separates the post lower Carboniferous tectonic activity into three separate phases involving extension and thermal destabilization to explain the Permian subsidence and extension for both the Triassic and post mid-Jurassic subsidence. As it is simple to relate these three phases directly to the observed subsidence pattern, we follow this history throughout the rest of this paper. Definition of the problem Various authors (Sclater and Christie, 1980; wood, 1981; Wood and Barton, 1983) have applied the

Load more